Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeKidsinKy  Do you think you could give me a pithy statement which describes the distinction between logical consequences that punish, and ones that do not? Is it in the intent? (I'll disagree that it's not difficult to ascertain, as I've been struggling with this myself for oh...5 years now! It's not at all intuitive to me, could be how I was raised.)
I'll give you a personal example. This morning I had to take my oldest DS (7) to basketball camp, and he gets very anxious if he's late (to anything). I tried to get him and my twins (5.5) to get upstairs and get dressed, while I attended to some chores that needed to get done before we left (recycling taken out for the truck, DS's water bottle filled and iced down, MIL called to remind to pick DS up from camp, and *drinking my coffee* ;-) All three of them were playing legos. I got their attention and reminded them that we had to leave in 20, 15, 5 and 3 minutes. I also reminded them of the consequences...oldest DS would be late if he wasn't ready to leave at 8:40, twins would have to go in their jammies (which were Tshirts and undies this day) and that they'd have to sit in the car while I took DS in because they couldn't go in without pants and shoes. I even asked them if it would help if I laid out their clothes for them so they could dress quicker, and they all said yes...which I happily did. Both DS's waited until the 3 minute mark to dress, but they did so and were ready to leave on time.
DD however, waited even longer, and at 8:39 she was rushing upstairs screaming at me that she HAD to get dressed because she didn't want to wait in the car. At 8:41 because of her tantrum she could not get her shirt on (let alone her pants and shoes), and DS was chomping at the bit getting anxious, so I picked DD up and placed her in the car in just her shirt and undies. She screamed all the way there, and the whole time she had to wait in the car.
To me, this is a logical consequence; to my acquaintance this was a punishment. But my intention was not to hurt her or make her sorry she didn't dress...my intention was to get DS to his camp on time because HE was ready when asked. What is your opinion?
|
Thank you for not taking offense. I probably would have been clearer had I not been incurring the natural consequences of posting while my youngest was literally hanging on my leg, and the logical consequence followed- that I required correction for an incomplete expression. Thank you for that too.
I think that there is another aspect of this that might be what you're friends are actually discussing without being clear. That is, how the action/inaction is perceived. In your example, you took dd out as she was, which was not punitive because it wasn't retributive, but just necessary according to your plans. She had to go as planned and you were willing to take her in whatever her condition. She, otoh, may have perceived this as punishment because you imposed the logical consequence that in pyjamas, she would have to wait in the car. Who decided that she must not be seen wearing pyjamas in public? That's a hard one because it is a value judgment and societal construct that compels us to be dressed certain ways as opposed to other acceptable ways of dressing in our homes, and this is constantly shifting.
I am in no way criticising you at all- just trying to figure it out now too...
So, I would say that it was punishment at the latter end of the consequences, whereas at the beginning, it was logical, but not punitive. I suppose to have been punishment-free, she could have been welcomed as she was dressed and welcomed in every activity that was previously planned. Any natural consequences would occur without intervention, and further logical ones would be from others who might comment according to societal expectations, maybe insulting your mothering or her choice of dress, or worse. It doesn't bother me to see a child in pj's, so i wouldn't be imposing any consequences, but others might.
And there's the issue of family sanctity too. In the province where we used to live, a child in 'inappropriate clothing' is considered neglected and cps would take that seriously, not as concerned with the learning as with the child having been allowed to exit the home in pj's. I sadly know this for a fact because my dh used to work in a related field there.
Also, whether or not you value those societal expectations is another issue. I am subject to all sorts of logical- only because of preconceived ideas about what my role is and how dc ought to be raised, and not imo actually logical at all- consequences for the choices I make that are common enough at mdc, but not so much elsewhere.
So, I guess there is a disparity between theory and practice in the perception of the child, and also in the intent vs. the result. I think that the greatest disparity between LC that is punishment and LC that is not is in intent though because if you can teach your children about your thinking and it does in fact make sense, logically, then they have learned something valuable for their lives even if it takes a while. Many people have stories of how their parents insisted on something that at the time really seemed like punishment even though they insisted it wasn't and it took years or decades for the child to come to understand and appreciate the parents' decisions as not punitive- as they were intended, and not as they were perceived.
I think though that in many if not most cases, NC happens without intervention, LC can be imposed without punitive intent or result though it can be tricky and may be a very fine line at times, and punishment is retributive for perceived wrong-doing, the result being pain of some sort.
So thanks again. I need to find that foot in mouth smiley.
You are right that it is fuzzier in practise than in theory.
There's also the added tension of unknown and unknowable variables, such as if you had gone to a park and were surprised to find that a merry-go-round had been brought there for a short time and because your dd wasn't wearing shoes (for instance), she couldn't participate- an unintentional consequence. Of course that would be logical given the requirements of the merry-go-round, but not to you necessarily.
Anyway, where I don't have the time or inclination to go down each rabbit trail of potential consequences to each action that requires my attention, I go with my gut. I am not punitive-minded, so in the moment, I just do what seems most loving or least harmful or most relieving
or some compromise between all of those. So scientific, I know.
And honestly, sometimes the natural consequence is that mummie has a meltdown. I consider myself a part of nature and when over-worked and overwhelmed and exploited for my willingness and self-sacrifice, sometimes I am actually unable to do anything but cry or have a mini-hissy-fit. Sincerely unable- like end-of-my-rope sort of thing. But that's mine, not my dc's, and I don't think it is harmful for them to see what happens when mummie is pushed too far for too long. It isn't imposed or punitive though, and I prefer that to punishing any day. Someone else might just tell me that if I punished my dc, I wouldn't end up in that situation, but I don't think it's the worst thing to become aware that mummie is a human being, and being one in the lowest moments still isn't a punishment to my dc. Others might consider my meltdown a punishment.
I guess I do impose some logical consequences that seem like punishment to my dc, so if to them it's punishment, does it matter that I can make the intellectual distinction for them? I try, and they do understand most of the time, but it's all a work in progress.
So, I go with calculated and conscious 'intent.'
). I came from a very punitive background, so this is in no way second nature for me. I'm probably still on the side of more punitive than not, but just barely.
